TAXI.com

Hi guys, I try to learn as much as possible from the returns, but this time I don't quite get what needs improving. I have listened to the track and checked the remarks from screener 452 on QUIRKY, LIGHT HUMOR INSTRUMENTAL CUES

I am struggling to find anything to improve, because to me it was sort of part of my plan to make it this way. But hey, my ego might be clouding my judgement here.

Here is the feedback https://www.taxi.com/members/ZGOT87BHSm ... mHNGA3gRYg

And here is the track. https://www.taxi.com/members/ZGOT87BHSm ... trumental-


I appreciate any input that can help me understand - and hopefully improve. I tend to trust the screeners because I know they are experienced and know the genre they're set to screen.

But this time I didn't really get it, and tend to disagree.

Best, Jan-Henrik

Felix,
2 Cents Comments:

Definitely a fun and certainly a quirky piece.

:54 (Off the Quirky Vibe?)
I wonder if the listener is referring the (---a 1) big punches that are happening under the piano part right around :54? Maybe it feels more dramatic/powerful versus quirky?


1:12 (Forgot what it was playing)
There is also a clear "stutter/syncopation" right at around 1:12 that could be interpret as a little finger stumble. It was probably an intentional syncopation but . . . it's reasonable to interpret that a little error in playing that topline. I could see how it could pull someone out of the track and attract attention. I hear the same phrase played around 2:04 and it doesn't read quite as syncopated there. Is that a copy/paste of that phrase or is the playing just more even in that spot?


I hope you get some comments from others more expert. Just trying to do my part to participate in the board, as I asked for feedback the other day. I figured I'd better not just take but also try to give.



Best of luck to you,
Johnny

Hi Johnny, many thanks for taking the time to listen, and comment! That little finger-stumble was actually intentional, meant to be part of the quirky But my intention counts for little, if it is interpreted otherwise.

Felix,


I totally understand and thought that the "finger stumble/syncopation" "might've" been intentional. I can see how it could "also" be interpreted as quirky/fun.

I do hope others on the board chime in too. I shared more out of courtesy than expertise.



If it means anything to you, my wife walked into my office/studio just to share that she liked the track I was playing (your track - obviously). Someday she'll do the same for one of my tracks . . . someday.

Best wishes to you,
Johnny

Felix,

Nice cue! I really like the mischievous-impish vibe. Listening to your cue and reading the screeners feedback; two things come to mind.

First, I also thought the "stumble" at :54 was a mistake. Mostly because the previous iteration of that motif (before the "stumble") was rhythmically in time, while at :54 it was "a little" out of time so not obviously intentional.

Second - and this relates to the critiques I got on my first few returns: that the main motif melody didn't have enough variation when it was repeated later in the cue. That's what I was told and that's what I hear in your final section. And I think that's what the screener is referring to in their comment about not being enough of a developmental arc.

Hope this is helpful - Paul

Really nice. I would touch up the 2 areas mentioned and pitch again to both listings and libraries on your own. As far as the developmental arc at the end of the cue, the point is valid, but MHO is the first 1:43 alone sells it and many libraries would be happy to take it.

PS I'm a song guy, not a cue guy (Caveat!) been that's based on my years of observation and listening.

Good luck!
Casey

Hi all, and thank you for great feedback! I'll definitely look into this cue again and see if I can improve it. Will pitch it again as Casey writes, when a similar listing turns up And Johnny, give my regards to your wife. I'm always happy when my wife reviews my songs as she usually has some great input.